Daniel Phillips wrote:
> If we go by your reckoning (and the Microsoft comment really is a forgery)
> then we're down to zero. Of course, it's possible I overlooked some
> favorable comments in my quick scan of over a thousand emails.
Thanks for clearing that up. In addition, I browsed the archives, but
didn't find any concrete RAND supporters. By principle, I wouldn't include
anyone who authored the draft, or its affiliates. So yes, there isn't any
genuine support for RAND here.
I have one doubt - is IBM's Gerald Lane opposed to RAND in W3C standards or
not?
I hereby propose that the W3C work in Internet time and modify the draft to
reflect the following:
- mandatory patent disclosure by members of the WG;
- ensure all W3C standards and recommendations - past, currently under
development and future - shall remain freely implementable and royalty-
free, with no restrictions whatsoever, in perpetuity;
- lastly, shelve RAND;
Kindly add anything I may have missed, or any errors.
Regards
Jason